Malaysian Airlines flight MH17: Can US abdicate its responsibility for the catastrophe?

The heart of the trouble in Ukraine lies in the obstinacy of the US to integrate Ukraine into the European Union and the NATO military alliance. The aim was to deny strategic depth, expose Russia to geo political vulnerabilities posed by the west and thus contain Russian power. The trigger for the trouble in a country which had remained peaceful till then was the Ukraine’s elected president Viktor Yanukovych’s refusal to tow the US line to sign the ‘association agreement’ with the European Union (EU). An agreement signed by Yanukovich with Russia to extend the lease of Sevastopol, the Russian Naval Base of Black Sea Fleet from 2017 to 2042, was yet another point of annoyance.

Dumping the elected Ukrainian President
Despite a compromise deal overseen by a group of European envoys, lawmakers and a Moscow-appointed representative signed on February 21, 2014 agreeing to hold early elections, revert to a parliamentary form of government, and in the interim form a national unity government, a regime Change was effected by engineering a coup in Kiev on 22 Feb 2014. A recorded telephone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt exposed Washington’s intentions to bringing about a regime change through violence in Kiev and other parts of Ukraine. The elected President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych who indeed was not very popular was thus overthrown.

The Machiavellian ways of the US
US efforts to create an armed rebellion in the Muslim dominated Caucasian Republics were visible when its allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar were found funding the Muslim separatists. The aim was to contain and tire out Russia in an armed struggle and wean away its western, southern and Baltic neighbours into the EU and the NATO alliance. Putin responded by ruthlessly crushing the uprising in Chechnya.

In 2008, in a similar effort to render the Southern frontiers of Russia vulnerable, an endeavor was made to drive South Ossetia and Georgia into NATO fold with the help of a pliable Georgian President Mikheil Sakashvili. Russia intervened militarily.

The Russian reaction
The Russian reaction to the developments in Ukraine was immediate and predictable. Russia had no choice but to be inside an area which could become the base for danger to its sovereignty and integrity. A concerned Russia motivated the eastern Ukraine dissidents to seize control of the Headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. The entire Crimean region came under the pro-Russian residents backed by armed personnel from across the Ukraine – Russia border. On April 16, 2014, the elected Regional Assembly voted in favour of holding a referendum on the future of the Crimean Autonomous Region. The people of the Crimean Autonomous Region voted overwhelmingly in favour of merging with Russia. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin signed laws on reunification of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol with the Russian Federation and it was ratified by the State Duma on March 20, 2014.

Instigated by Russia, protests in the pro Russian cities of Eastern Ukraine Donetsk and Luhansk escalated into an armed separatist insurgency, which led the Ukrainian government to launch a military counter-offensive against the insurgents. “Self-rule” referendums were held in Ukraine’s eastern areas, with pro-Russian separatists claiming that nearly 90% voted in favour in Donetsk region. A till then peaceful region was thus turned into a war zone.

The breach of trust
In November 1989, much before the collapse of the Berlin wall, the US President HW Bush had appealed for “a Europe whole and free.” In February 1990 his Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachav that NATO would move “not one inch” to the East, if Russia pulled back its 24 Divisions stationed in East Germany.

It was a historic moment. US either failed to picture the opportunities provided by the collapse of the Soviet Union to bring about lasting peace and stability in the region or it was overwhelmed by its geopolitical rapaciousness in the region. US chose to go back on James Baker’s promise by incorporating Poland, Hungary, Czech Republics into NATO in 1999 and Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia five years later, thus isolating Russia. Its intentions for eastward expansion were unambiguous.

Russian concerns
Russia’s concerns have been very clearly articulated by Putin during his press conference on April 17, 2014. He went on to state, “I’ll use this opportunity to say a few words about our talks on missile defense. This issue is no less, and probably even more important than NATO’s eastward expansion. Incidentally, our decision on Crimea was partially prompted by this … We followed certain logic: If we don’t do anything, Ukraine will be drawn into NATO …. And NATO ships would dock in Sevastopol…. (Key elements of the latest missile defence systems are ship borne.)

“Regarding the deployment of US missile defence elements, this is not a defensive system but part of offensive potential deployed far away from home… At the expert level, everyone understands very well that if these systems are deployed closer to our borders our ground based strategic missiles will be within their striking range”

Former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates gave away the US intentions in his book ‘Duty’. Defending himself against accusations from the Right, he states that it was his concern for Russian sensitivities that prompted him to revise the missile defense plan for Europe. The revised system included sea-based missiles that were not only cheaper but also more easily and cheaply produced.

Animosity and polorisation of major powers
The US has responded to Russian intervention in Crimea by imposing sanctions on pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians, officers and businessmen through sanctions. On April 28, US added more Russian individuals and companies to a sanctions list. Sanctions for the conflict and instability in Ukraine which were initiated by US?

The acrimony in Ukraine has brought Russia and China closer with China signing a $ 400 billion natural gas deal with Russia on May 21, 2014. Russia’s tit for tat moves in Iraq, Iran and Syria do not augur well for peace in West Asia. The effect of the strained relations will have economic implications for Europe and especially Germany.

Conclusion
President Putin was not the one who destabilized the Ukrainian government. Today’s crisis was not of his making. The question is would any self-respecting nation have remained reticent while a hostile country was sculpting a conspiracy in its backyard? It is time the US took a breather to retrospect and realise the level of destruction, loss of life and misery that their regime change strategy and involvement with the rebels in almost every region of the world is creating. The resultant misery to the poor, women and children is a violation of human rights which US keeps shouting from roof tops every now and then. It is affecting world peace, US reputation and standing.

By supporting the Ukrainian rebels the West has helped alter ordinary demonstrations arising out of a country’s internal issues into violent street fights with protesters hurling petrol bombs and using small arms against authorities. They have encouraged indiscipline and violence. Opportunities for peaceful resolution of the internal conflicts in Ukraine were also disregarded as it did not suite the larger designs of the US. If East Ukraine has become a war zone and a danger to international civil aviation the west cannot abdicate its responsibility by merely criticising Russia or the rebels.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Author

Brigadier (retd) V Mahalingam, has held varying command and staff appointments in his 35 years of Army service. He specializes in security related matters and is a leadership trainer. His areas of interest include national security, defence and security forces, governance, and politics.

Brigadier (retd) V Mahalingam, has held varying command and staff appointments in his 35 years of Army service. He specializes in security related matters a. . .